rjsdavis1

It's ok.

The first half is pretty slow and a lot lame. The second half is significantly better (the miniature characters are the highlight of the film), but ends a little flat overall.

Eddie... Eddie baby. WTF are you doing?

Stop making crud like this. Stop the Klump crud. Stop making this crud. GO BACK to your best.. Coming to America. Trading Places. These are classic, classic gems - some of the best comedy films ever made that will live forever and be watched forever. No-one will be watching this again beyond next year.

CCL? Poor...

Please go back to your amazing stand-up. Please give us more RAW. Please give us more Beverley Hills Cop (not BHC III obviously). Stop with the family comedy, go back to the adult comedy - it's what you were born for.

Awful.

This is an act of theft where many scene's have been stolen from the 1996 original and simply remade, in a god-awful way, with low quality budget actors.

The lead actor doesn't have an iota of the character or charisma that Arnie's oozes in spades, and nor does he look remotely tough enough to carry off the role. The guy that's copying James Caan - even worse.

Honestly, that's all you need to know. Watch the original. Ignore this awful copy (reboot).

When will Hollywood final get the message that reboots always fail?

Leave the originals alone. Instead of pumping out crud, show a smidgen of creativity and come up with something new. If there is even enough talent in Hollywood to do that...

If you liked the original film - you'll hate this.

This has been re-made, as if it's an inoffensive kids film like SpyKids, or something similar. The fantastic, glib humour of the original has been completely "lost in translation", along with the character dynamic, and the plotline.

This is drab, boring, lacking in tension, lacking in genuine action, lacking in genuine drama, with plotlines telegrpahed from 3 miles away.

I mean this - if you loved the original, YOU WILL HATE THIS.

Do they really think that kids of today don't have parents who will signpost them back to the amazing and great movies from bitd?

Honestly - the way that Netflix, Amazon and Apple are re-making stuff like reeks of shambolic desperation as they're unable to knock up an original idea between them.

Move on. Forget this. Go watch Jack Ryan or Slow Horses instead.

Honestly, have a flick through some of the other reviews, and you'll find a few self-worshipping fools chanting the "if you didn't get it, this film's not for you" sort of mantra.

The film is basic surrealism, designed to convey what it's like for women to face real danger, everyday, but to find themselves helpless, ignored and even disbelieved when something very bad happens to them. Great, we get it. We know it. You'd have to be pretty ignorant as a human being to not know that some women face some horrific events in their lives at the hands of men, and all too often the Police are of zero help when it happens to them.

Does this film help?

No, not at all. This film is a basic time-looper that places the victim in her home, day after day, and a "faceless" (masked) man appears everyday to attempt to kill her. The woman faces a lack of interest, help and support from everyone else in the film, including her husband.

Honestly, this film is crud. It's stupid and non-sensical to play the husband in this way. No husband would walk out in such circumstances and in such a way, abandoning his wife so casually and nonchalantly to the hands of a faceless killer.

I get the meaning - however, there was simply no tension, no real drama and no real impact from this film. It would have been far better to have played a real (stalker/harasser/rapist type) story that's actually occurred, and shared the real plight of a real woman, which would have been far more impactful and distressing to watch. It would have created real tension and real fear for people to understand, and help others, who don't seem to "get it" (the plight of many women) understand how powerless many women feel, and the fear that many women feel simply trying to live their lives.

It's a simple premise, but they've chosen a really odd way to present it. It's missed the mark by some distance for me.

Appalling. This is a direct insult to the fantastic original.

If you loved the original, you'll hate this. It looks like some idiotic studio gave some budget to some student filmmakers, and this was the result.

I can't get this 90 minutes back, and that will have to stay with me for some time... :-(

Avoid this at all costs - even if you're curious about giving it a look. The acting is appalling. The story is appalling. The actors are appalling. The production values are "TV movie". You'll hate the characters. You'll hate the new Creeper. You'll hate yourself for having ignored this warning and wasted your time regardless.

This is diatribe of the worst kind.

Willis is as awful as he had ever been in anything (except maybe Apex).

Kelly Greyson is one of the most amateur actresses I've ever seen, and is more interested in walking (strutting) to accentuate her figure and legs than she is in actually acting. You can see that she is thinking more about how she'll look on camera than in acting. It's that dire. The guy that plays the "Special Forces" character... WTAF?

Honestly, I watched this and deleted it. I'd rather have empty space on my server than crap like this. The real life outcome? I can't unsee it.

I'm so bored, I can't even be bothered to write anything else.

DO. NOT. WATCH. THIS. GARBAGE.

It's certainly among them. I think this is what I'd expect if a porn director attempted to have a stab at making a genuine action movie.

This is horrible. Horrible in every respect. You have a lobotomized Willis, walking around looking more vacant than ever before, with plenty of vacant "looking up at the sky" moments. Neal W who seems to be reprising Cahill from Suits, but in a less interesting way. The rest of the cast? Amateur in the extreme. It feels like a student movie in many respects.

I really regretted watching this. It's an attempt to be similar to Hard Target, Hard Target 2 in particular and a smidgen of the Running Man. Hard Target 2 was a poor film - but this is so, so, so much worse. If you want a human hunting film - go back for some JCVD or Arnie - you'll be glad you did.

You'll deeply regret losing 90 minutes of your life watching this diatribe.

I was in two minds as to reveal spoilers in here. Upon reflection, I can't really critique it without them.

As many have already suggested, they've turned Bond into a semi-romantic melodrama, where Bond becomes an unknowing father (Mathilde - but not fully revealed until later in the film), his uninspiring partner (Swann) creates about as much sexual chemistry with Bond as my foot does with its shoe, and in the end, Bond is killed (supposedly) in a missile strike on the villain's island lair - and yet everyone is talking about the "James Bond will return" message as the end of the credits "surprise". What's new there? This sentence always appears.

On the one hand, they've sort of gone back to what Bond used to be; A megalomaniac villain with a secret island lair and lots of henchmen, that wants to take over/destroy the world. Bond also gets more gadgets from Q than we've seen in previous Craig films - so in this respect, it's taking a backward step towards a tried and tested Connery/Moore formula.

The villain's weapon? DNA programmed, cellular sized nanobots (yes, cellular-sized robots) that target very specific individuals, groups or races that was developed secretly with M's oversight, and now stolen from the British Government and re-worked to become a WMD - Huw Dennis pops up as a scientist FFS during the theft sequence - and whilst I'm sure he loved his cameo, I can't take this comedian seriously popping up in a serious action film like this - making jokes! Come on... let's keep these things on planet Earth shall we? Remotely believable or possible please? Nanobot tech - what were they thinking with this? It's as ludicrous as an invisible Aston. Nanobots/Nanites is all a bit I, Robot or Bloodshot - i.e. Science fiction.

The opening sequence is really long. The action is great. The melodrama really isn't.

WTAF was going with Billie Eilish and the Bond theme? I can't even begin to remember how it went, or a single lyric. Such a disappointment. I actually think back to Madonna's effort with great fondness now - as whether you liked it or not, at least you can remember it and hum the tune if you wanted to. Bond anthem's are supposed to be just that. Anthem's. This tepid and dull effort is the worst Bond song even commissioned. Perhaps she was too busy releasing videos of herself explicitly doing something she shouldn't to put the effort in? Awful and entirely forgettable. Bring back Chris Cornell - now that was a Bond theme from recent years... bet you can hum it too if you're reading this.

Felix Leiter is killed. At the time of the event, it felt like something that worked in the storyline and was the "shock" character twist in the film. It probably still does work, but I'm so irritated about how woke the scriptwriting has become overall (you don't see a single bad guy actually get shot in the whole film) - has it all gone a bit "A-Team" for BBFC ratings?

Lashana is entirely unconvincing for me as a 00. She says the right things, but time is spent with her worrying about Bond's 00 designation after he is reinstated. What genuine 00 with any genuine gravitas would give a monkey's about such petty things? For me, her ability to carry weight as a 00 ended right there. Physically, she could probably have carried it off - but the mindset's just not right to be a superspy.

All we need now to kill this franchise off forever is for some sort of Dr Who gender-bending character regeneration exercise to occur to explain how Bond didn't actually die when the RN missile exploded right in front of Bond at the end of the film with a bit of UniSol spun in there for good measure. If Bond is genuinely going to return in a new film as the bloke we all know called James Bond, and I really hope that he does - the only possible explanation for him not dying at the end of NTTD would be if he's blown off the island by the missile explosion, and is found floating in the sea by a passing fishing trawler - which is a little bit Bourne (perhaps through in the Bourne amnesia too?). Can you imagine if they go down some ridiculous clone/robot "consciousness transplant", a la Picard to explain away his continued existence after dying? I don't like the potential explanations for Bond *not* dying in the next film - particularly if Waller-Bridge and the rest of the wokerati remains involved in writing the scripts and screenplay.

Overall, I'm pretty disappointed, and I just don't want to write anymore about this disappointing instalment. Bond films are not family melodrama's. With Craig rather fawning over Waller-Bridge's script involvement and consequent changes to the script in the Graham Norton Bond special last week, it's definitely time for Craig to finish and move on - which is such a shame, as he's been an excellent Bond. Really excellent. He's clearly quite woke himself now, and I noticed that he was down as a producer of the film in the credits, so Craig is partly to blame for this mess. One of the most revealing things from the Norton special was when Graham asked Lea what she thought about Waller-Bridge. That silence was utterly deafening, and it now makes more far sense to me....

As a Bond fan, if you're reading this, you're still going to watch it - of course you are. I'm going to have to watch it again just to revisit my thoughts on it - but Christ. You can't kill Bond. Not even to try to be edgy or controversial. Idiots. Why did Barbara sign off this script crapola and risk the longevity of the greatest franchise in film history? Don't lose your marbles Barbara like Kathleen Kennedy did ruining other franchise's.

Guy Pearce: Do you have a pressing IRS bill to pay? What were you thinking starring in this utter garbage? Go and find some new projects like the magnificent LA Confidential.

Epicly awful film. Epicly awful acting. Epicly awful story that was badly told. Do not waste your time watching this crud.

I turned it off after just 20 minutes.

The nonsense freshly washed and well-made up hair of Marion. The ridiculous quilted "Assasin's Creed" type jacket that Robin is wearing. The ridiculously neat modern haircut of Egerton. The modern-day beanie hats being worn by some people in the mines.

All stupid, stupid, stupid. I don't know what it made, but if it really cost $100m to make, that's some of the worst money spent by Hollywood in a while.

Stupid take, needlessly made. Ridley Scott's take on the story wasn't great - but it was a hell of a lot better than this nonsense!

Finally, Bruce Willis' career has disappeared down the toilet, flushed right down after Nic Cage's. What a sorry end to it.

Like so many European footballers that have disappeared off to China to play in their leagues, simply for the cash, so has Bruce. This film smacks of desperation from the get-go, and it's clear that the former Hollywood Royalty of WIllis, was recruited, no doubt for a massive fee, simply to try and get bums on seats to watch this diatribe, along with Brody. You won't likely have heard of anyone else in the cast apart from these two.

It opens with god awful CGI, and I mean really awful. A half-decent XBOX or PS4 game offers better wartime CGI than this. It just looks so cheap and amateurish by comparison to what we're used to these days. Even Star Wars from the 80's offers far better.

The film is awful - particularly the acting and dialogue, where the Chinese actors are carrying on as if they were American. It's not a spoiler, but within the first five minutes, you have an elderly gentleman knocking on the door of a tea shop, with the most crass psuedo-wannabe NY accent, it's actually off-putting. Like any Chinese national, in China, in the 40's would have spoken in such a way... what were they thinking?

Just a couple of minutes later, we see a lame CGI air battle, during which a Chinese pilot is shot and downed, as he realises he's going to crash, he utters the memorable "Hey my brother, I'm not going to make it back for dinner" - WTF? Do they think that Chinese pilots were quaffing amongst themselves in such a fashion, rather like a stereotypical RAF film made in the 50's? Honestly, it was a real struggle to go beyond 7 minutes with this utter carp. I dare you not to think about turning this off in less than 10 minutes! Let's not mention the fact that the Chinese pilots are talking to one another - mid air-battle, in voices like they were in a quiet lounge sitting next to each other! Stupid. Let's also overlook that another Chinese pilot that gets shot during the battle then proceeds to perform a spectacular back-flip to "bail out" of his plane, jumping so high that it looked like an ejector seat had thrown him up and well clear of the tail of the plane - also very stupid.

I could go on and on. It's awful. I can only think that they're tried to have these Chinese pilots have Western sort of conversations, to try and make the film appealing to Western audiences, drawn in by Willis' and Brody's involvement. Epic fail. A sell-out to traditional Chinese culture and values if ever I saw one.

Have a squiz at it if you fancy a giggle at how Bruce's career has really nose-dived these days. Does he have a large IRS bill that he needs to pay? If I could have given this less than 1* - I would have done.

I do understand why films like this are made. It's never going to make the movie theatres, as the production values are just too low, the acting is too poor, and the critic reviews would be too harsh.

However, this sort of film gets made as it will be repeated on TV networks for years, at low cost.

As a film, it's below par. The acting, particularly from the bank manager and "crew" that are the villains in this piece, is very, very poor. Totally unbelievable, and totally unengaging. Cage himself, is ok. He's better than the rest of the cast, but the film is so poorly put together, it's not enough to save it. I read that Cage had major tax debts in the US, so I get why he continues to put his name to below par efforts like this.

It's the sort of film that might be worth a watch once, particularly as I read somewhere that this was based on true events in the US, but I'm not wholly sure that's correct, as it strays a fair way from the events of the true story of the North Hollywood shootout. In the end, the concluding drama of the piece, just feels like a really low budget rehash of Michael Mann's Heat that's very short and missing any grittiness.

In short, go watch Heat again, and probably swerve this one.

The film opens with a plea from the Director, talking about how they've shared the film on file sharing sites and so on with a moral plea for a donation if you liked the film - fair enough. I was hoping that I would enjoy what I saw.

I didn't. It was awful. I don't want to include any plot spoilers, so I won't, but suffice to say that the story is so ludicrous, that you sit there watching it from about half-way through and wondering WTF am I doing watching this diatribe?

It's reasonably well made, where I'd describe the production values as being upper end of a TV move / straight to DVD movie in quality. I'd really hoped for something reasonable, as for a TV movie type movie, the cast was fairly decent.

At the end, all I could think was what were people like Vanessa Williams and Michael Dorn thinking, putting their names to a nonsense story like this? Don't me wrong, I'm not religious in any way, but even I'm watching this and thinking... Did someone really make this crap up?

It's a disappointing affair, and I'd like to have gone to the website and donated, but I genuinely, really didn't like this movie at all. The Director pops back up at the end to explain the post-credits sequence, and I really hope that this doesn't evolve into a sequel or TV series - it would be a tragic mistake.

Seriously guys - you need to get the story right to begin with. Don't make a half-baked, half-decent quality film, if the base story is utter dogpoo. I'd genuinely be interested to learn what this film has made financially after it's release. IMDB infers that it's made next nothing (only a few thousand dollars) in a limited theatre release. I really can't imagine that many people will have moseyed along and made a personal contribution for any reason other than feeling a bit sorry for the people that made the film. The Director implies in his opening gambit, that everyone worked for free and is solely relying on voluntary contributions to make anything for their efforts! I hope not.

Oh, and the acting? The acting from the established actors - all well and decent. The youngsters however are fairly poor. Unrealistic nonsense from them all when they discover what they think they've discovered, and even worse when Philip does what he thinks he's done to who he thinks he's done it to. Awful.

Acting is straight out of stage-school. Wooden and rigid.

The plot is poor. The dialogue/script is very, very poor. This isn't even TV movie quality.

How on earth did Claire Forlani fall from Meet Joe Black to this rubbish? Avoid this. Don't waste 93 minutes of your life.

EDIT: I wrote after having watched the first 20-25 minutes. I wish I could now give it a lower score, as the film just got progressively worse... What Claire Forlani's character did in the lift shaft at about 55 mins is simply ludicrous. The acting surrounding an aerial accident a bit later is even worse.

I wish I could unwatch this diatribe.

This is an interesting and worthwhile watch. I'd actually give it a 6.5, but rounded up...

The show does not state that all patent infringement claims are frivolous. It states that a very large and significant proportion of them are, and that a very significant proportion of them are generated by shell corporations (LLC's typically), from empty offices, and mostly in some small towns in East Texas.

It also states that in a significant number of cases brought, the Judge's are relations (fathers) of the two lawyers controlling the lawsuits! These appear to be proved facts.

Honestly, the muck that is uncovered here is eye-watering. And dreadful. I feel extremely sorry for these mid-size companies that are being bled dry by the leeches that seek to sue and litigate for everything.

Oh, and Peter Wolf. Just wait till you watch his interview. I cannot believe that that individual had the gall to agree to be interviewed and said what he said. I'm shaking my head in disbelief at the content of his interview - listen carefully to him; his patent was eventually quashed but he kept all of the "licensing" cash that he bled out of the photographers before he was eventually found out.

The world really is full of scumbags. Watch this well-made amateur film effort to see some of them.

I've just watched this, and I have to say - it's horrible.

It's pretty sad to see the demise of a great Hollywood actor, being forced to take roles in such awful, low budget films to pay the rent (and tax). Such a shame - Nick Cage is pretty much ruined forever now.

The movie, without revealing the plot, takes a 70 year old truth and projects it forward in a very predictable "run it by the numbers" sort of way. The plot line is thin. The acting is thin. The story isn't worth watching or listening to.

It seems to me, that writers are being specifically forced to write stories that deliberately focus on using ultra low-budget locations, very small casts and low budget FX to keep the overall film budget super-low to de-risk everything. This very notion is utterly evident here, where everything smacks of a "cheap, low budget and straight to DVD/TV Movie" effort.

It's largely unwatchable in places. Examples of this are:

1 - Early on, someone that Cage's character is talking to attempts to murder him. The acting and dialogue is utterly, utterly dire.

2 - Towards the end, a child is escaping the clutches of a villain in an old warehouse. This is so stupidly acted and "storied" that it's laughable.

3 - The main protagonist/villain is so awful throughout, they really ought to curl up in a ball and hang their heads in shame at their performance.

The big "reveal" at the end. Dear, oh dear. It was lame, predictable and utterly underwhelming. Don't touch this with a barge-pole and go watch Wind River instead if you want a good, absorbing thriller!

There aren't many films that I'd specifically recommend to watch, but this is one of them.

I didn't know anything about when I went to watch it. I'm glad I didn't. It came as a fantastic surprise.

It's bleak and eerie. It has a little "Insomnia" mixed in with some "Jodie Foster/Clarice Starling" thrown into the mix. It's a little dark, suspenseful and interesting right through the reveal at the end.

The story, whilst nothing shocking in of itself, is realistic and believable. The reveal towards the end is satisfyingly on the money, and it tugs at the emotional strings to see very believable and well acted grief on the part of the family that suffered the loss. The acting was excellent and carried the drama very well. More crime thrillers should deliver like this did.

Just watch it - you'll be glad you did.

What goes on in the heads of movie producers & directors these days? Are they so offensively arrogant, that they believe that the cinema-going public will simply lap up crap like this?

Do yourself a favour. If you want to immerse yourself in some quality Sci-Fi, go see Bladerunner 2049 or something old like the Terminator. Avoid this like the plague.

This is a straight to DVD, afternoon TV Movie quality that is almost entirely as unwatchable in its conception as it is in its execution. John Cusack and Carmen Argenziano at their absolute worst. You two should hang your heads in shame - where's your creative pride guys?

In short - this film is garbage. Utter garbage. If you liked the original, you'll hate JC III. This has all of the look and feel of a TV Movie, or a low budget film that was sent straight to DVD.

The story is utterly lame. There are no shocks in it. It is not creepy in any way. This time, we see an awful lot more of the Creeper and the film-makers have seemingly tried to give it some "character" or even some "back story". This was such an error.

The reason that the first film makes you jump, is because you don't see too much of the Creeper, and know almost nothing about what it is or what it's capabilities are. This changed in JC II - which in part was more of a comedy horror film than an all-out shock-fest, where it was demonstrated that he could be brought down with a large harpoon in the chest, and subsequently in the head (not a spoiler as JC II is 14 years old!).

Releasing this nonsense, that supposedly sits between JC and JC II in the timeline makes no sense and offers a few more tricks on the part of the Creeper (various weapons that appear from the truck during the film) to "spice things up", but in fact it fails epicly to deliver anything new that's in anyway creepy or scary. Everything is predictable. There are no shocks.

Oh, and what was going on with that cameo from Gina Phillips (not a spoiler as she's named in the credits)? A film that takes place "a day or two" after the original JC (2001), where Gina is supposedly now a day or two older, but is in fact 16 years older and no longer looks like a teenager (she was in fact in her very early 30's when playing a late teenager in the original JC!), but she now looks like a woman in her 40's (because she is in fact 47 now), but is still trying to pass herself off as a few days older than her persona in the original JC? That was simply moronic.

The acting overall is lame and lifeless (Stan Shaw - what happened to you man?). The actors are entirely unable to convey any sense of peril or fear. This is making low-rent movies by the numbers, and I hope it made a big loss so that they don't make anymore of this nonsense.

What should they done? Picked up after where JCII ended, with an aged Ray Wise and his son ready to take it on right from the get-go in their barn and see where that went when it awoke - 23 years later.

JC III as a storyline was such an error. I fear for JC IV which apparently has been written. If it's set in the same time period, this will be an error too.

PS - have a think about where some of these weapons are appearing from on the truck. It's just stupid, if weapons and defence mechanisms entirely defy the laws of Physics. (The Creeper flying not included in this of course!)

All I'll say is - from the music over the opening credits, right through to about minute 10, see if you can't listen the soundtrack and think of nothing but Arnie and Predator!

I know he's responsible for both films, but this is just way, way too close - just as lazily close as the soundtracks between Commando and say 48 hours / Another 48 Hours (all done by James Horner) is.

Lame and lazy.

It's a visual spectacle, of that there is no doubt.

However. I was left feeling empty and disappointed for these reasons:

1 - The lack of all CGI ruined the film for me from the get-go. During the first beach scene's, it strikes you how 70's/80's the beach front buildings and windows are. That's because it is. It looks way more recent than wartime. It's wrong and it looks wrong.

2 - I had no sense of scale. The beaches seemed as empty as the dialogue. There were supposed to be 400,000 soldiers awaiting evacuation and many hundreds, of not several thousands of civilian boats coming across to rescue them. Watching the film felt like there were a few thousand soldiers and maybe 50-100 boats involved.

3 - The whole film is devoid of much dialogue. It meant that you really didn't connect at all with any of the characters - particularly the Hardy character who did little more than look menacing with his eyes in most shots.

4 - I really didn't like the way that the story-telling dotted about, seemingly randomly at times, to tell a short and limited story from differing perspectives, in a totally non-sequential way. It made a mess of the story-telling for me.

5 - Did the Hardy character really do what he does in the film? I think not.

A missed opportunity to have used this visual spectacular really hit home on what really happened, and what it was really like back in 1940 on Dunkirk beach, in the same way that the opening beach-landing scenes of Saving Private Ryan are indelibly etched into my mind as really giving a sense of visual perspective of how epicly awful it was to land on Omaha beach under enemy fire.

The visuals are great. The story-telling is poor. Overall, it's not a film I'll be rushing to see again.

It's awful.

Christian Bale in particular, and I know he's still only a young lad in this film - but compare this performance to that of Empire of the Sun where he was just a child. He was superb in EOTS - awful in this. It feels like a set of performances from people that haven't been acting for long, that are actually being positionally directed from off camera.

This feels like an AmDram school performance that has made it onto the screen with an uber low budget. The fight scene where Amled is in England is particularly awful - I've seen children at school stage a better "battle". Brian Glover - you should be ashamed of yourself.

Yes, the story is being retold accurately, but it's like Amateur hour. Just watch in horror, as you witness this all-star cast deliver a visual feast that can be matched in most village halls. Honestly - it was diabolical. I only watched it to save myself the time of reading Shakespeare's original play. I wished I'd read it instead of having watched this. I can't unwatch this travesty.

Quite a few critics in the UK have panned this film as "schmaltzy" or a "pastiche" of warfare films. Ignore them.

Bottom line is - the story is fairly slow to get going. It's too slow to get through the back-story of his early life and only gets going after Doss arrives at Fort Jackson for basic training. From that moment on, the film starts to build up to what this is really all about - how he won the Medal of Honor (which is not a spoiler).

When they get to Hacksaw Ridge, there's 5-6 minutes of warfare gore that is totally full-on. Rightly so - it's disrespectful to those that served and died to depict their sacrifice and experience as anything other than unbelievably awful.

Then, just sit back and watch what Doss did next. It's an inspiring story. Can't believe I've never heard of this inspirational story of courage before now. Watch it and be prepared to shed a tear.

This is OK, to a little less than OK.

WTF is Connie Nielsen doing with some god-awful attempt at a well- spoken Brit? That was embarrassing and utterly cringeworthy to watch. A world away from her performance in Gladiator.

Special effects are well below par - and a competent film unit from the BBC would have done far, far better. Indeed - Dr Who is better made than this for explosive FX.

Fairly lame and clunky handover sequence during bus sequence from the entrance of Battersea Park to Millbrook Proving track! Boat sequence that preceded it was fairly good though. Sounds like the music owes a fair bit to the most recent Mission Impossible films (Rogue Nation) also...

Overall - reasonable popcorn fodder. Don't expect too much from it - it's totally generic.

Don't waste your time watching this film - why:

* Sexist * Unfunny * Desperate * Unimaginative * Filled with product placement * Storyless

If you're fan of the original films - you'll hate this "remake" by default. It's offensive diatribe.

Disappointingly, it looks like they've even tried to set-up a teaser for a sequel in the final post-credits sequence, referencing "Zuul" from Ghostbusters II.

I am disappointed that Dan, Bill, Ernie and Sigourney allowed themselves to be associated with this sh*te - even if it was for a laugh and some easy money. Harold will no doubt be turning over in his grave. Sacrilege.